On Jun 30, 2010, at 05:14 PM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
>Ah, sorry, seems like I was too quick with my merge proposal. Gnn, now I
>have to grok how to supersede it on lp. I'll go and fix it.
Just push an update to your existing branch. I believe LP will rescan your
branch and update the merge pr
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:55:38AM -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> I don't have a problem with including the patch in 2.1, except for the
> Defaults.py.in
>
> ALLOW_SENDER_OVERRIDES = Yes
>
> If it were no, the feature would be entirely transparent to those who
> didn't want it, essentially preservin
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 16:55:38 Mark Sapiro wrote:
> I looked at your patch yesterday. It seems good, but it's missing a
> critical piece. It has to increment DATA_FILE_VERSION in
> Mailman/Version.py. Otherwise, the code in Mailman/versions.py to add
> the include_sender_header attribute to exi
Malte S. Stretzwrote:
>
>Here is a branch for 2.1:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~mss/mailman/2.1-sender-header
>And here for 2.2:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~mss/mailman/2.2-sender-header
>
>Not sure how to proceed from here, shall I try a merge proposal?
I looked at your patch yesterday. It
On Jun 30, 2010, at 04:38 PM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
>On Wednesday 30 June 2010 16:24:07 Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 04:07 PM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
>> >Any chance to have my patch applied to 2.1 (and/or 2.2)? I ask
>> >because I have to take care of some mailing lists on a shared
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 16:24:07 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 04:07 PM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> >Any chance to have my patch applied to 2.1 (and/or 2.2)? I ask
> >because I have to take care of some mailing lists on a shared server
> >and I doubt that the admin will upgrade to 3.0
On Jun 30, 2010, at 04:07 PM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
>Cool. I set the status of bug 266824 to Fix Committed.
Thanks. I've targeted that to 3.0a6.
>Any chance to have my patch applied to 2.1 (and/or 2.2)? I ask because I
>have to take care of some mailing lists on a shared server and I doubt
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 04:15:46 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2010, at 06:19 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> >On 6/29/2010 6:15 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >> It may just be time to ditch the Sender rewriting in Mailman 3. I
> >> don't think a reading of RFC 5322 can justify it, and I'm pretty
> >> s
On Jun 29, 2010, at 06:19 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>On 6/29/2010 6:15 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>> It may just be time to ditch the Sender rewriting in Mailman 3. I don't
>> think
>> a reading of RFC 5322 can justify it, and I'm pretty sure getting bounce
>> processing right with modern MTAs no
On 6/29/2010 6:15 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> It may just be time to ditch the Sender rewriting in Mailman 3. I don't think
> a reading of RFC 5322 can justify it, and I'm pretty sure getting bounce
> processing right with modern MTAs no longer requires it.
+1
--
Mark Sapiro The highwa
On Jun 29, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
>I guess it shouldn't be too hard to whip up a patch for 3.0 as well. I
>just wanted to make sure (and start the old discussion again :) if it
>should default to On or Off. If I interpret this [2] post from 2006 it
>isn't really needed. (H
Hi folks,
every now and then the Sender header added by Mailman is discussed on this
list. Patches float through the net. The old FAQ is gone but for some
reason I remember that it was point 2.3. Guess I read it too often.
Because every now and then I get bitten by the header breaking someb
12 matches
Mail list logo
